One paragraph by Al From right after our win in November...I saw red.

[madfloridian]

I did not digest the rest of the article. The rest did not matter after he called us "noisy activists" and used Lieberman's win in CT to say that centrism was what we really wanted. It was dishonest, because Lieberman was elected by Republicans only after he left the Democratic Party to become an Independent.

Al From, one of the leaders of the DLC, was dishonest in this article.

Democrats must adopt a centrist course

There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party. The reality is that, unlike the Republicans who are a much more homogenous party, Democrats can only win with a broad coalition. An expanded party base depends on a spirit of inclusiveness; certainly the House Democratic caucus is more ideologically diverse than it was before Election Day. To remain in the majority, it will need to stay that way.

Think about how he worded that part about "noisy party activists". Think about how he worded the part about Lieberman being "excluded" from the party.

Here are the DLC leaders. Do they all think of us as "noisy party activists"? Do they all still hang with Joe Lieberman because of a "high profile" effort to exclude him from the party?

From the About page at the DLC.


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Al From is on the far right.

Today their new leader came up with some good ideas. Are they changing their philosophy, or as someone said in another thread...tossing a bone to us. Are they going to stop the name calling toward those in the party who stand up to their philosophy?

From one of their founders, Simon Rosenberg...why they were formed.

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Here are the positions that make it "difficult for Democrats to win." These are my own thoughts from observing how our Dems tippytoe around them trying to be so inclusive of the other side.

1. Gay rights
2. Women's rights like abortion and contraception
3. National security...using it as an issue and playing to it has us in a war we are losing and might lead us into another by all our Dem leaders posturing.

Good ideas are good ideas, unless they are wrapped in too much corporate power and too much bitterness toward activists in the party.

Fringe activists
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

[villager]

1. Al From: GOP Mole

n/t

[Dinger]

63. Not Much Of A Mole At That. More Like An Open repuke If You Ask Me (nt)

[LynneSin]

2. From is an asshole and the #1 thing wrong with the DLC

Another poster had some talking points from new DLC head Harold Ford that I believe most DUers were in definate agreement (it was about environment & education).

The worst thing about the DLC is Al From. As long as he is allowed to speak for the DLC then the DLC will always come off as the enemy

[madfloridian]

3. But he has been allowed to do it for years.

And our leading presidential candidate is one of the leaders as well. There are powerful enough Dems to shut him up if they want to do it.
Apparently they do not want to do so.

[wyldwolf]

4. your daily anti-DLC diatribes are beginning to blur together

Seems you posted this exact thing last week.. or last month... or both...

The only thing funnier is how you bump your own posts back to the top of the page 2..3..4 times as if miffed people are ignoring it.

[Flabbergasted]

15. An exceptional analysis demands a hearty thanks.

Would you care to share what part of the article is incorrect?

[wyldwolf]

19. Have I said any part was incorrect?

I think what From said was deadly accurate. Interesting the points she calls "traditional Democratic interests." The DLC is strong on all three.

[Flabbergasted]

50. I should had used OP instead of article.

oops.

[madfloridian]

18. I post about what is getting my attention.

I know you have every post of mine in your files somewhere. Hell, ww, I could even find you the journal links to this.

When things are very important, they need to be reposted after a time.

I tell you what.

You contact the mods and tell them I am posting stuff I posted a long time ago.

Perhaps you should do that. Good idea.

[wyldwolf]

20. you post what get's other people's attention... over and over and over...

[madfloridian]

23. I need to think that over. It could mean that what I post interests them.

I think that is a good thing.

It could mean that things that are true need to be remembered.

We are in a terrible tragic war because a think tank in our party made a laughing stock out of anti-war people. They called names, and they humiliated.

They got their war, and now they want to stay...the same ones want to stay to "protect our interests" we got by invading their country.

[wyldwolf]

27. At the COPA... COPA Cabana!

You post the same things over and over to create a perpetual state of fake outrage.

[madfloridian]

28. It is not fake outrage. That is where you make your mistake.

Our outrage is very real. That is what some of our Democrats fail to see.

When you take a country to a war based on lies, and you keep defending it and saying it will be worse to leave than to stay.....then you cause real outrage.

My outrage is not fake.

[wyldwolf]

29. yes, it is. It's manufactured

By posting the same info over and over, it acts as a switch. And when you don't get the results you're looking for, you bump your own threads 2, 3, sometimes 4 times trying to get it noticed so it will draw the fake outrage you're looking for.

[madfloridian]

33. Whatever you say. I will back off.

In the end, truth does not matter.

[wyldwolf]

34. ..at the COPA.....

[Jim Sagle]

57. Uhh..no it's not fake at all.

Unlike, say, the outrage over Clinton's cock. THAT was manufactured.

[Alexander]

60. You can't dispute the facts of anything he said.

The DLC urged the Democrats to invade Iraq every step of the way, and they are kicking and screaming while the rest of the party tries to drag us out.

[Forkboy]

58. especially yours.

[Jim Sagle]

49. Yeah, but they're all true so who gives a fuck?

[wyldwolf]

52. unfortunately for her and you, they are not.

[Jim Sagle]

53. Bzzzzzztttttttt!!!! Wrong!!!!!!!!!

[wyldwolf]

54. Do you often have outbursts of incoherency like that?

[Jim Sagle]

56. Only when confronted by anti-truth.

[Kurovski]

5. Democrats won in '08 despite the evidence that

Republicans once again involved themselves in Election Fraud.

Democrats won.

From is living not in the past, but in a world he's created for himself.

Americans are increasingly aligning themselves with the Democratic Party, and From is incorrect. Perhaps a liar. But why? Because "Al From is on the far right", or at least the right. This stuff about Lieberman is weak, to put it lightly.

To put it dramatically--which From likes to do--we should "know the enemy within." the DLC.

The Lieberman tale he tells is a total mind-f*ck, as the old saying goes.

Edit: It's the DNC, not the DLC, where we find consistantly Democratic values. And it is notable that the DLC continues to bad-mouth the DNC, such as when Dems won in 2008, and DLC talking heads whined pointlessly and at length, calling for the ouster of Howard Dean, the head of the DNC.

The DLC is often inexplicable in their statements, as in the OP, where reality is twisted. How can anyone take this organization seriously when statements such as those in the OP about Lieberman's win are made by a leader? How can there be trust?

The few stances they take to win adherents pale in comparison to the dishonest spinning on stories, and the unfair stomping of a leader such as Howard Dean that they engage in.

My suggestion is, unless you're a CEO of a major company, don't fall for the DLC. (Democratic Leadership Council)

Listen instead to the DNC. (The Democratic National Committee.)Which is headed by Howard Dean.

[madfloridian]

6. You are right.

From and others created a world view and have forced the rest of us to fit into it.

I have said for a long time that I could see both sides working together, but not until the hatred of that group toward "activists" is stopped.

Those of us who opposed the war in Iraq were right. We should not have gone. But we were treated very badly by our party.

[The Magistrate]

7. The Man Is A Poor Strategist, Ma'am

He is consigning hismelf to irrelevabnce through the cumulative weight of his misjudgements of the political scene.

[Kurovski]

10. Which man do you speak of?

Mr. From or myself?

I wonder whether I am or am not suffering the effects of caffeine-induced paranoia.

[The Magistrate]

12. From, Sir

I apologize for my inexact expression.

[Dr Fate]

9. Clarification- we were not merely right on Iraq- we were 100% right. The DLC was 100% wrong.

I agree with you- their "you guys are crazy, far-left fools" meme does nothing to help them or the party at all.

[madfloridian]

17. Amen. 100% right.

They need to stop the talking down to us.

[blm]

21. The Dem heavyhitters would NEVER say a word about election FRAUD because

then they would have to admit that progressive campaigns DO WIN.

They attack the candidate and the left as the reason for the losses so they can continue to push the party further right - and the corporate media HELPS them by pushing their memes against the left.

Election fraud? Not to the DLC.

[Clark2008]

24. 1908?

We haven't had 2008 yet.

Did you mean 06?

[Dr Fate]

8. But he will want us all to bust our asses if DLC/Hillary wins the nod for '08.

This is the HUGE mistake that the pushy DLC types are making- many progressive and moderate activists are not going to want to work for people who for years called them "wacky", "far-left", "noisey" "nut-roots" etc.

Note to the DLC- your "moderates" and "swing-voters" are great- but they will NEVER knock on a single door, make a single phone call, or donate a single dime for Democrats.

You all in the DLC may want to re-think the way you refer to and adress the people who have done 90% or more of the grunt work for the Democratic party.

[Greyhound]

22. The problem here is that this is exactly what they want.

They believe they don't don't need the base because they have huge piles of corporate cash. As long as the economy sucks they can hire all the phone solicitors they need, or better yet, hire an Indian company to do it.

They don't need canvassers because they can buy dozens of commercial spots to sway the sheep.

Saddest of all, if they succeed in pushing the liberals out of the party, they have total control of both choices in every election. That situation might change eventually, but it won't be in our lifetime.

[Dr Fate]

43. I realize that their strategic models are mostly based on the early to mid 1990's.

It's a huge mistake- the GOP will CERTAINLY tap grass-roots and internet activists and they will certainly invite their hard-working political & religous base to the table.

At the rate the DLC is going, they will be wielding a knife at a gun-fight come '08.

[Morgana LaFey]

61. BINGO BINGO BINGO

if they succeed in pushing the liberals out of the party, they have total control of both choices in every election.

One of the most important insights about the DLC ever. That is PRECISELY what they want.

See my post downthread re DLC funding.

[ShortnFiery]

37. You better believe it. The coercion and threats are already beginning. n/t

[SOS]

11. LOL

" a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party. "

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

13. Yeh, I know.

I tried not to laugh. It was so silly to say that and expect us to believe it.

:evilgrin:

[Morgana LaFey]

14. Totally right on -- here's more

" traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party" -- code words for THESE "traditional interest groups" in this so-called Big Tent Party:

Minorities
Labor
Gays
Women
The Poor and struggling and vulnerable

THESE are the people the DLC wants to throw over and relieve the Democratic Party of having to listen to and bother with by finding alternative funding --- which is, of coruse, CORPORATE FUNDING.

I hate the DLC and everything they stand for. The meaningless but high-minded-sounding Bone thrown by pretty boy Ford included.

[PassingFair]

16. K & R

Radical "fringist" here.

I WILL not work for, nor will I donate to,
a DLC candidate in the primary OR in
the general.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. Thank you for all your work...

on the DLC -- I have found it deeply enlightening. What I have read from you and others about the DLC confirmed what I had always suspected whenever I had seen a DLC representative on TV. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

Keep up the good work!

:hi:

Hell

[peacetalksforall]

26. What do the Republican Party and the DLC have in common?

arrogance
contempt for us
unilateral decision making with us to be damned
poor eyesight and hearing
perpetual war support
corporation bending
all creating a grand handicap for the human race on this planet

The Democratic Party is not owned by the DLC and we must let them know.
Some good people in the Republican Party have a parallel problem.

No DLC candidates.

[Cha]

32. Good List..I would

just add that corporatewhores can't really see anything else except where their next corporate buck is coming FROM.

[Cha]

30. Why doesn't fookin' al from and

his sycophants just join the repuke party and call it day. They're infiltrators who are too obvious to the "noisy party activists" that he can't keep on his mask..no wonder he likes to spit on us. We expose his weasely, sneaky, snarky, traitorous actions against the Democratic Principles that our Par-ty was founded on.

[Dr Fate]

31. Related thread & rebuttle:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3180384&mesg_id=3180384

I hope the OP does not mind if I link this thread to one of her related posts- that deals with a paid Lieberman(I) lackey attacking DEM voters & the DNC.

I like to be fair, so if you want the other side-a spirited defense/rebuttle of these attacks on DEMS, see post #4 in the above linked thread.

[wyldwolf]

35. yeah, actually...

... a defense of someone's free speech and a denial that anyone (including the OP) must grant permission for heroes to be criticized.

[Dr Fate]

36. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3180384&mesg_id=3180384

[wyldwolf]

38. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3180384&mesg_id=3180596

[Dr Fate]

40. Thanks- that's the exact link where the Lieberman ( I ) lackey is so valiantly defended.

Begs the questions:

Should we defend Rove's free speech when he attacks the DNC and DEM voters too- or just Lieberman's 3rd party?

If a 3rd party who threatend to join the pukes needs to have their free speech defended on DU, why not Republicans themselves?

Where do we draw the line in defending the free speech of enemies attacking the DNC- and should we be defending them at all?

[wyldwolf]

46. Again, I ask, cite one passage where what he says is defended.

Should we defend Rove's free speech when he attacks the DNC and DEM voters too- or just Lieberman's 3rd party?

I never agree with Rove but do believe he has the right to say what he wants.

If a 3rd party who threatend to join the pukes needs to have their free speech defended on DU, why not Republicans themselves?

The don't NEED to have their free speech defended. I just choose to, just as I would choose to defend yours.


Where do we draw the line in defending the free speech of enemies attacking the DNC- and should we be defending them at all?

Nowhere. We just rebut what they say.

Here is a quote from a fella who is pretty popular around here:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
* Noam Chomsky

(I guess he should STFU?)

[Dr Fate]

48. So you now oppose people who attack Dean and the net-roots?...

...but you defend the same anti-DEM attackers on this Democratic message board when someone else expresses concern about said attacks?

From the link that you volunteered to provide in post #38 of this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3180384&mesg_id=3180596

Okay- all clear now-gotcha.

When did you start disagreeing with people who oppose Dean, the net-roots and "the far left?"

[wyldwolf]

51. I support they're right to say what they want

You're either purposely missing the point, or you're becomeing as authoritarian as the rightwing.

I'll try to explain it further: Whether I agree with someone or not, they have the right to say what they will.

I now understand you DON'T feel that way and would impose censorship on those who you disagree with.


Okay- all clear now-gotcha.

[Dr Fate]

55. So you agree with Lieberman's lackey, not with Dean & the DNC on this-am I wrong?

I already know that you attack Dean & the "far left net-roots" just like Lieberman's lackey did- you agree with Lieberman ( I ), not with the DNC.

It's funny to me that you claim to disagree with people who express opinions that mirror things you say all the time.

You would think you would be proud of your true opinions, not ashamed of them.

[flpoljunkie]

39. Why is DLC's Harold Ford siding with Non-Dem Lieberman, who voted with R's against Iraq War funding?

Two Roads Diverged in the Woods for the DNC
by Chris Bowers writing for MyDD

That is how the Democratic Party was run in the recent past: to appeal to large donors as much as possible. Further, before the grassroots and the progressive movement starting taking an ownership role, it led to statements like this becoming the face of the Democratic Party:

Former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), yesterday said he does not agree with efforts by Congress to set a deadline for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving," Mr. Ford said.

It isn't just Ford who wanted to take us down a different path--it is the entire neoliberal, neocon, triangulate from a point of weakness, liberal-hating, Michael Bloomberg and Joe Lieberman loving, DLC-nexus of Democratic Party aristocracy that wanted Dean out. For example, I think it is pretty clear, at this point, that one of the "top Democrats" who was opposed to Howard Dean continuing on as DNC chair was Rahm Emanuel himself. Many of the post-elections stories about Emanuel reported that he was in close consultation with James Carville in the final weeks of the 2006 election, and it is hard for me to imagine that Carville would be leading such a campaign without Rahm's knowledge and support. Further, during the supplemental fight, Emanuel consistently proved himself to be the ultimate, backstabbing, anonymous leaker to the press, and anti-Dean stories are always filled with high ranking, but anonymous Democrats. Emanuel must have been behind the old anti-Dean stories somehow. An anecdote to back this up: during the supplemental fight, some Democrats close to the leadership were convinced that Emanuel was behind many of the anonymous leaks that led to the downfall of Murtha's plan in the press. In order to verify this, they intentionally leaked Rahm--and only Rahm--some false numbers about the new plan, in order to see if those numbers showed up in the press. When, the very next day, those false numbers did indeed show up in the press, Emanuel was immediately smacked down and demoted in his role on the supplemental. I would be very surprised if Rahm and his allies weren't most of those "top Democrats" giving negative, anonymous quotes about Dean to the media establishment.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/29/151715/036

[Alexander]

41. None of the DLC defenders here will ever admit they were WRONG on Iraq.

Wrong on Iraq,
Wrong on Iran,
Wrong on the Bankruptcy Bill,

And wrong for America.

[Dr Fate]

42. Clarification- not just wrong on Iraq- but 100% wrong. And the "far-left nut-roots" were 100% right.

Always take the time to remind them of that.

They were 100% wrong in their support of Joe Fucking Lieberman as well- so add that to your list.

[flpoljunkie]

44. DLC head Harold Ford seems to be speaking for the Blue Dog Dems, not the DLC--or, is he?

That is the question, now, isn't it? When every Democrat votes for the Iraq War funding bill today, who is Harold Ford speaking for as head of the DLC? Bush loyalists Republicans and Joe Lieberman? Certainly not the Democratic party and those they represent.

[Dr Fate]

45. He's speaking for people who were and continue to be 100% wrong on Iraq.

And not for me-that's all I can tell ya!!!

[flpoljunkie]

47. We are in total agreement, Dr. Fate.

[madfloridian]

59. Accused of "old" dumpter diving....here is new from November.

And newer to come later...but not now.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1227

[wyldwolf]

64. it's also hysterical how you bump your own old threads back.

[Morgana LaFey]

62. How did I miss this one?? I always like to post the DLC's FUNDING

***** Who Funds The DLC??
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x173238